No one has the whole truth. I'm not sure we would be able to see it even if we did. The best I have been able to gather is that we simply throw guesses at the universe and see what the readings reflect is accurate. This goes for the hard sciences pretty clearly, but there's much that applies to the softer applications. At one time, Philosophy was about pondering the mechanics of the universe until Science took over the task of proving them. At best, we have an outline of Truth, a number of points of data creating a shape in our information. This has inspired rich men to throw ideologies at the masses to see what sticks, trying to shape the consensus of reality as if this were the Discworld and the laws of Physics bowed to belief.
So here are some science-y sounding tips for navigating a world where truth is secondary and your belief is currency.
1. Get the Metadata
What is being said? What is being heard? By people you disagree with, and by you?
Where is the information coming from? Has that source been sued for lying? Is it a Notorious Disinformation Distribution Center, like a Moscow based internet research facility? Or has it been purchased by a Billionaire?
Who is hearing what messages? Who is benefiting from that?
When is this coming to light? What else does this coincide with?
Why is this being stated? The overt reason. Is it possible there are others?
How is it being presented? Is the tone congruent with the severity or rarity of the information?
Notice, none of this asks for any conclusions yet. So far, this is entirely factual. You can find quotes from disagreeing comments, and much of the other information is available somewhere adjacent to the information under scrutiny.
2. Principled Analysis
Now we have our mental notes taken down, we can start to analyze with our personal principles in mind. Principles are important here; You need something that you DON'T back away from, a hill to die on, if you will. Possibly even literally. Humans are wishy washy with everything except their hills to die on, and if you haven't calibrated your hill as one you would most certainly die on, you may find yourself switching hills too often and end up dying on a stupid one.
Examine everything you've noted and note any questions they bring up, then examine the answers to those. Examine your source's sources, if you can. Examine the groups involved with the info, examine their actions to determine their desires. Examine whose desires are served by the information that you have. Is there something the information points you toward, or away from? Who is pointing? Where?
The information itself, at this point, is no longer what you are using to make your decisions about how to act. This is Metadata. Information about the information. Often, the simple location of the source of information is enough to allow you to decide whether it needs to be taken into account in the way the source suggested. Some locations are notorious for disinformation. Sometimes you need to see where those sources got their information to notice the motives. Sometimes the information has passed through so many hands you can't examine its source, but you can usually still tell who the information hurts, who it helps, and who is telling it to you. Who is the information targeting? Someone is always being targeted. If the information hurts the innocent, reconsider acting as if it is truth. Look at other angles.
Sometimes, a source will fabricate something heinous, or split the discussion off to something meaningless to deflect. Sometimes it will fixate on something that makes an imperfect group appear evil or crazy, to deter supporters. Sometimes it will try anything to get you to stray from your investigation. Do not let the sources mislead you.
The Bible Thumpers I grew up around would use the phrase "Know them by their fruit." I don't know where in the bible that is, and they couldn't tell you either because they also never read it, but it's a phrase that leaks out of its problematic pages and into reality because it seems to serve so well for its purpose. The last thing you want to do is to look at the results of the information. What happened because it was spread? Or not spread? What didn't happen? Was the information incendiary? Did it cause someone to turn to violence? Who? And on Whom?
3. Conclusions
It's in the conclusions that your principles will be shining through. It all really boils down to one thing: Who do you want to pay with the currency of your belief? The hill you have chosen to die on has all the data needed to outline its shape, you just need to apply it. Who you consider to be punching up or punching down, who you consider to be the oppressed and who you see are the oppressors, will become crystal clear to everyone as soon as you explain your reasonings. So, please, reason with grace and care.
For everyone except Billionaires.